|
I don't think this statement is necessarily true. I actually think games like Starcraft can approach higher strategic levels by removing some mechanical requirements and only forcing the user to make decisions that have strategic merit. Case in point: the queen spawn larva.
Look, you don't really understand how this works :/.
Queens do have strategic choice. I can either make a creep tumor or spawn larvae at every cooldown. If for some reason I had a strategy that involved making a lot of creep tumors for whatever reason, I could do so.
That is strategic choice.
What it isn't is it isn't an intuitive strategic choice. I'm not spamming creep tumors because I know doing so is not optimal. You seem to only value intuitive strategic choices.
These intuitive strategic choices can only exist because of mechanics. Only when the game cannot be turned into a structure and you have a split second to preform calculations will you be making intuitive strategic choices.
The queen spawn larvae, is not an intuitive choice. So what? It increases the mechanical demand of the game in a very intuitive (in this context I mean intuitive as in the sense: "Easy to pick up and understandable and relevant for new players) way, which increases the overall intuitive depth of the game as a whole.
A better example is probably Ruse (the new Ubisoft game). Ruse is very badly balanced for competitive play, so don't respond and go "OMG RUSE IS TERRIBLE LOL!", but I think it's an interesting game for the same reason. In Ruse, the mechanical skill required is very low. If it was well-balanced, it might be a very competitive strategic game.
As a side note:
Has it ever occurred to you Ruse is poorly balanced for competitive play, or intrinsically unbalance able for competitive play, because lack of mechanics? Mechanics restrict the structuralising of gameplay. As gameplay becomes more structural, minute differences are amplified. As you decrease the role of mechanics, the inherent structure of the game has to become more balanced. Likewise, a game heavily driven by mechanics has a much laxer requirement on balance. Once you approach zero mechanics, you need to be at perfect balance.
|
No, bisu didn't come up with the bisu build himself. I remember reading about how he combined 2 players build: Forge FE, sair/dt. What bisu did is he showed everyone its power and made it standard.
I just want to point out that for a good year, over half of pvz was the bisu build. I don't know about you, but I facepalmed every time after the first month because it stopped working. So many games were thrown away because pro players (making salary) kept on doing an old strategy that very seldom worked.
|
Fair enough, let me clear up that I don't think idrA is less intelligent or a worse player. But you can't deny that idrA has a very clear gameplay focus, and that is to have solid macro mechanics. His practice most likely focuses more on remembering macro mechanics and timings than exploring new builds. Do you disagree with that?
Yes, you are completely wrong.
In practices sessions, Idra runs a wide variety of builds to see if certain builds are viable, and to analyze there strengths and weaknesses, and plays ladder to remain up to date with the current metagame and how to react to it.
All these have woefully little to do mechanics.
I think the pinnacle of creativity on SC2 is creating new builds from scratch. It requires you to think about new things, requires you to create ideas using a non-standard thought process. There is no 'method' to create a new build. You can't follow step a, b, c and come out with a new build. On the other hand, if I want to refine my macro timings, I can follow a simple procedure. I can just test a bunch of them and compare. Scientific method. I see a lot of new builds from TLO, and I respect that creativity.
Literally anything you made will have been run 20x before you, to the point where "making your own build" is really just altering the timing of an already existing build. Maybe you were the first to play it publically, or the first to post about it.
TLO has only created "new" builds in the sense they varied from already existing builds in incredibly minute ways.
Even if you really did invent it, its hardly creative unless its markedly superior to an existing strategy. Otherwise you just reinvented the wheel.
On the other hand, if I want to refine my macro timings, I can follow a simple procedure. I can just test a bunch of them and compare. Scientific method. I see a lot of new builds from TLO, and I respect that creativity.
Realize that SC2 macro is easy enough that the only time a person fails at macroing is through getting "shook up" by the play of there opponents. While macro can still be refined, very games are lost because of macro. The vast majority of them are lost due to tactical or strategic blunders.
The things an AI couldn't do better are the game-theory-esque outsmarting-your-opponent kind of things. Two pronged attacks, stuff like that, I love, and it has a lot of strategic merit. Creating builds would be hard for an AI, etc.
Yes, AI possess exceptionally poor intuition. Sadly, humans are too good at it, and the result is in order to make a competition of intuition it needs to be either unknowably complex or tied to mechanical elements.
|
This thread seems to be going way off topic. Intelligence is relative to a specific activity or way of thinking. Starcraft intelligence is what other people have been saying - remembering things, making good decisions very fast, having and adjusting solid strategies, ect.
|
On September 21 2010 15:02 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 14:51 happyness wrote:On September 21 2010 14:10 iEchoic wrote:On September 21 2010 14:02 Half wrote:
People like him can't really excel at anything, all they do is whine about how broken the system is while parade how naturally gifted they are. I guess some people prefer delusion to despair. Why don't you learn how to read instead of attacking me. I'm just offering an opinion relevant to the thread. If you don't like it, troll somewhere else. The example I gave was WhiteRa, who was the motivation for my post. I think it's sad that WhiteRa doesn't compete in many tournaments anymore because I used to really like watching him play. I don't like watching mechanics-centric players like IdrA play. I love TLO's creativity but aside from him, not much creativity goes on. Almost all players of the same races do the same builds and people just try to out-mechanics eachother. It hurts the watchability of the game. And I would love to play a turn based strategy game, unfortunately not many good ones exist. Half, calm down buddy. iEchoic: it takes creativity to respond to TLO's play. I'm tired of this attitude that "IdrA is a mechanics-centric player therefore he isn't as smart as players like TLO" Just because TLO is unconventional doesn't automatically make him smarter than IdrA. IdrA knows how to respond to almost anything and has a game sense that neither of us could ever understand. I've already made this point many times: IF ALL IT TOOK TO GET GOOD AT SC2 WAS SPEED AND MULTITASKING (i.e. mechanics), THEN A COMPUTER COULD PLAY BETTER THAN ANYONE. But AI currently can't play creatively and can't respond well to certain things but the human brain can. Fair enough, let me clear up that I don't think idrA is less intelligent or a worse player. But you can't deny that idrA has a very clear gameplay focus, and that is to have solid macro mechanics. His practice most likely focuses more on remembering macro mechanics and timings than exploring new builds. Do you disagree with that? If not, do you disagree that exploring new builds requires more creative processes than working on macro mechanics? I think the pinnacle of creativity on SC2 is creating new builds from scratch. It requires you to think about new things, requires you to create ideas using a non-standard thought process. There is no 'method' to create a new build. You can't follow step a, b, c and come out with a new build. On the other hand, if I want to refine my macro timings, I can follow a simple procedure. I can just test a bunch of them and compare. Scientific method. I see a lot of new builds from TLO, and I respect that creativity. Also, the AI question is a bit misleading because it's implying that I think the game has zero strategic merit. I definitely think the game has strategic merit. But some parts, like very efficient macro, yes, could be done better by an AI. An AI could be written that out-macros idrA (assuming it doesn't die) because it's a largely mechanical process. The things an AI couldn't do better are the game-theory-esque outsmarting-your-opponent kind of things. Two pronged attacks, stuff like that, I love, and it has a lot of strategic merit. Creating builds would be hard for an AI, etc.
I see that sort of strategy in the top players' game, and I think that there are a lot of subtle things that go largely unnoticed.
When it comes to watchability, I think it really depends on how well you understand/enjoy the game. I don't enjoy watching chess because I don't understand the game. The same goes for BW.
I don't see how someone who has played SC2 more than a few times couldn't enjoy watching it. There is still a very human element to their risk taking and blunders and yes, strategy. Not every match is going to have some crazy new build order, and some games will be boring. But really is there any sport or competitive game that is exciting every game? It really is pretty rare in anything to have close matches and in the case of sc2, two players who are so close mechanically that they have to rely on creative thinking.
|
not really, intelligence can make learning faster and you need a base level of intelligence to be able to understand everything, like if you're fayth level retarded you're never gonna be good, but its more about thinking quickly than thinking well. 99% of the time in games you've experienced similar situations before, no one good is really coming up with entirely new creative responses on the spot. its just about how quickly you can call up and execute knowledge from similar situations in the past.
|
On September 21 2010 15:02 iEchoic wrote:
SC2 is a very good game, and a lot of people think I'm attacking it. I'm just taking a side that some changes (like the queen spawn larva change) would increase the quality of the game. No need to get offended.
The thread is about what I'm talking about, if you're incapable of hearing that opinion, read a different thread.
It's just that with every post I see of you, you seem to be on some crusade to make mechanics completely null and it just annoys me.
I enjoy seeing level of play that I can never achieve. I can truly see the difference between a pro-player and a regular player. I don't really see that so far in the sc2 scene, which is why I don't go out of my way to watch sc2 games like bw(wake up at 4am at least once a week) but whether that is because the game is still young and undeveloped or because of lower mechanics idk, but once I see that difference, I might actually keep track of the tournaments.
So, basically your argument is that you don't think that players should be rewarded for putting in the extra effort? That is how it works with all competitive sports, as been pointed out before, it's just that the limit this time instead of endurance or physical strength is APM. Our hands can only move so fast.
As for you pointing out that people do get tired from practicing sports after a while. It is kind of the same with sc, except this time it's mental exhaustion instead of physical exhaustion. Your brain also needs some rest and can only take in so much information in one day.
|
No, you dont have to smart. The game is really simple compared to other things. All you have to know is unit counters, strategies, build orders and that is pretty much it.
|
On September 21 2010 15:28 IdrA wrote:
not really, intelligence can make learning faster and you need a base level of intelligence to be able to understand everything, like if you're fayth level retarded you're never gonna be good, but its more about thinking quickly than thinking well. 99% of the time in games you've experienced similar situations before, no one good is really coming up with entirely new creative responses on the spot. its just about how quickly you can call up and execute knowledge from similar situations in the past.
I don't agree that 99% of the time you've experienced similar situations. Maybe its because im random or something, but I still see new awkward builds, not that many of them work, and most are pretty retarded, but its scary that people are trying to get this stuff to work.
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
Nope, not at all. Just take a look at Bisu when he plays. The guy plays like a moron trying to ram his head into a brick wall when he PvTs.
|
On September 21 2010 15:28 IdrA wrote:
not really, intelligence can make learning faster and you need a base level of intelligence to be able to understand everything, like if you're fayth level retarded you're never gonna be good, but its more about thinking quickly than thinking well. 99% of the time in games you've experienced similar situations before, no one good is really coming up with entirely new creative responses on the spot. its just about how quickly you can call up and execute knowledge from similar situations in the past.
IdrA has spoken. This thread(and subsequent stupid arguments) should now end.
|
On September 21 2010 15:38 zomgtossrush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 15:28 IdrA wrote:
not really, intelligence can make learning faster and you need a base level of intelligence to be able to understand everything, like if you're fayth level retarded you're never gonna be good, but its more about thinking quickly than thinking well. 99% of the time in games you've experienced similar situations before, no one good is really coming up with entirely new creative responses on the spot. its just about how quickly you can call up and execute knowledge from similar situations in the past. I don't agree that 99% of the time you've experienced similar situations. Maybe its because im random or something, but I still see new awkward builds, not that many of them work, and most are pretty retarded, but its scary that people are trying to get this stuff to work.
i mean at a high level
low level players dont know what theyre doing so they're far less predictable, you run into weird stuff a lot more. you've also practiced less and so experienced less.
|
On September 21 2010 15:39 Roffles wrote:
Nope, not at all. Just take a look at Bisu when he plays. The guy plays like a moron trying to ram his head into a brick wall when he PvTs.
And just look at how he's doing now? Mechanics do have its limit aka we can only train our hands to move so fast. There comes a point when intelligence comes to play.
|
On September 21 2010 15:38 zomgtossrush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 15:28 IdrA wrote:
not really, intelligence can make learning faster and you need a base level of intelligence to be able to understand everything, like if you're fayth level retarded you're never gonna be good, but its more about thinking quickly than thinking well. 99% of the time in games you've experienced similar situations before, no one good is really coming up with entirely new creative responses on the spot. its just about how quickly you can call up and execute knowledge from similar situations in the past. I don't agree that 99% of the time you've experienced similar situations..
I believe it, I'm only a fraction as experienced at ~1500 diamond and i very very very very very rarely see new things I have no clue how to adapt to. When I lose to something unheard of I just add it to a mental database to recall later, and at this point, almost everything has been added. The only challenge is remembering it all and recalling it in time.
The exceptions are base trade scenarios, extremely lategame scenarios (minerals depleted), etc.
Edit: once you play against good players, as well, there's less to deal with because everyone runs optimized builds. There are less optimized builds than there are random bullshit that plat players do, so there's a lot less situations to account for.
|
You dont need to be intelligent necessarily, but you need to understand the game. By that I mean goals and how to achieve them. How to react to overall situations etc.
It's not like you need to be intelligent to play other sports either, you just need to understand those games.
I will say though, all the players that brought major revolutions in bw (boxer, savior, bisu...) didn't do so via mechanics but a new way of playing. I would argue that those three have done more for the sport then oov, nada, flash, or jaedong. They might not have won as much, but they set the blueprint for how everybody else plays teh game.
|
On September 21 2010 12:59 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 12:52 d3_crescentia wrote:
Now, does this detract from a game's inherent competitiveness? Does practicing basketball for several hours detract from that game's competitiveness? Basketball has built-in limitations on how much you can practice. Usually your body won't let you practice for more than 6-8 hours, and in addition practicing ceases to be effective after so much practice in a day and you need to give time for your muscles to rest. Even practicing large amounts of time takes a lot of willpower. It is hard as hell to do because your body will physically try to stop you. Starcraft doesn't have those limitations, which is what makes Starcraft a really bad competitive game in my mind. Anybody with no real-life commitments can sit down and play the game 12 hours a day. It takes no willpower, it doesn't physically hurt, and there is no mechanism preventing you from doing so. Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 12:56 happyness wrote:On September 21 2010 12:08 iEchoic wrote:On September 21 2010 09:38 Hakker wrote:
Now, that discussion has been done to death, but it did lead us into an interesting debate. He claimed that professional Starcraft doesn't take large amounts of intelligence because deficiencies in a players strategic thinking and tactics can be overcome by spamming games and perfecting mechanics. He pointed to the korean style, practicing for 12-14 hours a day, as proof of that concept as well as players like Idra who nearly completely rely on mechanics alone to bring them to the top. Food for thought. Did you play Halo wars 6-8 hours a day? When you spend a lot of time on ANYTHING you are going to get good at it. Granted there are limitations, like you probably won't be great in basketball if you are 5 foot 0, but you could still be good. See above reply - basketball is much different than starcraft. And no, I didn't play Halo Wars 6-8 hours a day - and the people who played mass games never really were top players. That's because the game's mechanics ceiling was very low and you couldn't differentiate yourself from others by getting good mechanically (which takes massing games). I disliked it at the time but I'm starting to like the idea of it more and more when I see the way Starcraft players exploit their lack of real-life commitments for an edge.
No. The physical limitation then becomes how much you can practice SC while maintaining optimal sleep. There are possible consequences from extended computer use that we haven't observed yet - eyesight deterioration, wrist problems, etc. simply because we don't know what the long-term effects of such a lifestyle are.
But, that wasn't my point. If you're trying to argue that it isn't a good competitive game because there are no physical constraints on how much you can practice, you're missing the point of a competitive game entirely. Anyone who professionally competes in a sport would practice more if it was physically possible. The question I asked was, does the fact that you can mass-game detract from the game's competitiveness? No, because competitiveness isn't determined by that standard.
|
On September 21 2010 09:49 NoXious90 wrote:
I don't think it requires as much intelligence as say, chess, but generally speaking, most top Starcraft players I've seen come across as pretty intelligent.
You dont have to be intelligent to play chess well. Computers beat humans and no computer is really capable of having an individual thought, they only know what they have been taught and think really fast about the options.
Personally I think that playing Starcraft can help you become more intelligent ... if you do it the right way. The way is trying to solve "a problem" [of losing to X] instead of reacting like the usual kid "oh I lost, this game is dumb".
|
On September 21 2010 15:41 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 15:38 zomgtossrush wrote:On September 21 2010 15:28 IdrA wrote:
not really, intelligence can make learning faster and you need a base level of intelligence to be able to understand everything, like if you're fayth level retarded you're never gonna be good, but its more about thinking quickly than thinking well. 99% of the time in games you've experienced similar situations before, no one good is really coming up with entirely new creative responses on the spot. its just about how quickly you can call up and execute knowledge from similar situations in the past. I don't agree that 99% of the time you've experienced similar situations.. I believe it, I'm only a fraction as experienced at ~1500 diamond and i very very very very very rarely see new things I have no clue how to adapt to. When I lose to something unheard of I just add it to a mental database to recall later, and at this point, almost everything has been added. The only challenge is remembering it all and recalling it in time. The exceptions are base trade scenarios, extremely lategame scenarios (minerals depleted), etc. Edit: once you play against good players, as well, there's less to deal with because everyone runs optimized builds. There are less optimized builds than there are random bullshit that plat players do, so there's a lot less situations to account for.
I think we are both secretly agreeing with each other. Or it might be because i am a notch below you 1200ish random.
Like i said, i see people TRYING weird stuff, but most of the time its so obscure I can use my strong game sense (some from playing random) to quickly find an appropriate counter.
|
On September 21 2010 14:10 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 14:02 Half wrote:
People like him can't really excel at anything, all they do is whine about how broken the system is while parade how naturally gifted they are. I guess some people prefer delusion to despair. Why don't you learn how to read instead of attacking me. I'm just offering an opinion relevant to the thread. If you don't like it, troll somewhere else. The example I gave was WhiteRa, who was the motivation for my post. I think it's sad that WhiteRa doesn't compete in many tournaments anymore because I used to really like watching him play. I don't like watching mechanics-centric players like IdrA play. I love TLO's creativity but aside from him, not much creativity goes on. Almost all players of the same races do the same builds and people just try to out-mechanics eachother. It hurts the watchability of the game. And I would love to play a turn based strategy game, unfortunately not many good ones exist.
Some ideas are stupid like yours and well this is a discussion isn't it? He isnt attacking you he is attacking your stupid ideas and gives reasons for how they are stupid--not that you are stupid, per se. What you are though is another random terran newbie who claims to be so good if only the game was based on intelligence. Games based around mechanics are shown to be more successful than "pure strategy" games, because well pure strategy games are boring to most people. If all starcraft was mind games like IdrA v Lotze g2 hardly anyone would watch it, you might as well watch people play rock paper scissors for money. So no Mechanics-centric games are better to watch than these 'strategy' games because none of the other RTS games that focus around that are successful.
And having a focus on mechanics doesn't detract from strategy or thought, they can both coexist side by side. The main reason is that mechanics are driven by the cerebellum while conscious active thinking is controlled by the frontal lobe. You just seem to not be able to appreciate all the subtle decision making that goes on.
|
"Being smart", "intelligence", and "IQ" are pretty much bullshit concepts. SC takes a skill set, whether you want to arbitrarily throw some of those skills under the category of "being smart" or not is up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
